Zhen Li wrote:I examined the AGW argument. How couldn't I? Everyone is bombarded by it daily.

I've presented the counter argument, and the burden of evidence does tend to be on the anti-AGW side so there's more to come, the onus is on you to counter them. Changing font colours doesn't tell anyone anything.

Please proceed.

What do you think of "peak oil"? It's a closely related topic, not quite the same of course.

Do you want Zhen Li's opinion on that or something a bit closer to informed opinion?

smcj wrote:What do you think of "peak oil"? It's a closely related topic, not quite the same of course.

Do you want Zhen Li's opinion on that or something a bit closer to informed opinion?

Well yes and no. I've started a new thread, but I might as well show my cards here. My point was going to be that since we are going to run out of oil in the foreseeable future, wouldn't any of the steps that might be precipitated by the specter of global warming be appropriate anyway in order to avert the shock to the global economy when the oil really begins to run out? Is there a downside to renewable energy?

Just saying'...

Unless I am quoting scripture or a recognized authority my posts are my opinions only and not Dharma. I offer my posts for entertainment purposes. Hope you find them either interesting or enjoyable!

Zhen Li wrote:I've justified my claims for pages and pages Kim. You've already made up your mind, you're just a contrarian. It doesn't matter what I say, you'll either dismiss it without going into any detail, or not address it at all. It's your choice, you choose to only read biased sources and not consider opposing arguments. And when I do go into any detail and have a paragraph anything longer than a few lines, you just complain that it's a "wall of words." You can make the effort, or you can keep messing around. Your choice.

IdleChater wrote:All the talk about who is causing what is utterly pointless. We are way past anything useful coming from that discussion.

Agreed - provided that what you are trying to say is that the present-climate change is to a significant extent man-made, hence no need to 'talk about who is causing what' anymore. In order to prevent what you call 'a global human catastrophe', we have to wean ourselves off the non-renewable resources first and foremost - and work from there.

Actually I don't think anything can be done. Ecological collapse is inevitable, now. What we should be looking at is ways to handle that.

We're going to be weaned off those factors we contribute to global warming whether we want to or not.

You know, ecological collapse is not an A-bomb explosion-like event. It's gradual. It doesn't have an imaginable final point (or if it does, it's irrelevant to us). And it's inevitable in the sense that it's already happening - and, even though it is undoubtedly more and more destructive with every day, we're not really weaning ourselves off anything. I can, I'm afraid, easily imagine a scenario in which we do absolutely nothing as the world literally burns. Not even the lack of available resources will make us simply stop, as the increasing fracking craze proves beyond the shadow of a doubt. Wars caused by climate changes may be tearing the world to pieces, genocide and other atrocities may be committed daily, famine and poverty may reach unthinkable levels with civilisation collapsing all around us and giving way to sheer barbarity - and corporations will still strive to do what they have always done. Business as usual.

To put it simply: you cannot reduce, let alone eliminate, the results of climate changes without addressing the causes ASAP.

smcj wrote:Regardless of who is right in due time it will become obvious.

Provided you want, or at least allow yourself, to see that which is obvious. Deniers, as Malcolm pointed out, will just keep denying no matter what evidence life throws in their faces.

smcj wrote:What do you think of "peak oil"? It's a closely related topic, not quite the same of course.

Do you want Zhen Li's opinion on that or something a bit closer to informed opinion?

Well yes and no. I've started a new thread, but I might as well show my cards here. My point was going to be that since we are going to run out of oil in the foreseeable future, wouldn't any of the steps that might be precipitated by the specter of global warming be appropriate anyway in order to avert the shock to the global economy when the oil really begins to run out? Is there a downside to renewable energy?

Just saying'...

First question: Yes, absolutely.Second question: As compared to fossil fuels and nuclear power? None that I can think of.

treehuggingoctopus wrote:You know, ecological collapse is not an A-bomb explosion-like event. It's gradual. It doesn't have an imaginable final point (or if it does, it's irrelevant to us). And it's inevitable in the sense that it's already happening - and, even though it is undoubtedly more and more destructive with every day, we're not really weaning ourselves off anything. I can, I'm afraid, easily imagine a scenario in which we do absolutely nothing as the world literally burns. Not even the lack of available resources will make us simply stop, as the increasing fracking craze proves beyond the shadow of a doubt. Wars caused by climate changes may be tearing the world to pieces, genocide and other atrocities may be committed daily, famine and poverty may reach unthinkable levels with civilisation collapsing all around us and giving way to sheer barbarity - and corporations will still strive to do what they have always done. Business as usual.

To put it simply: you cannot reduce, let alone eliminate, the results of climate changes without addressing the causes ASAP.

treehuggingoctopus wrote:Provided you want, or at least allow yourself, to see that which is obvious. Deniers, as Malcolm pointed out, will just keep denying no matter what evidence life throws in their faces.

If all the glaciers melt by midsummer and the Ganges, or the Mississippi, or the Amazon runs dry, you'll know something is up.

Unless I am quoting scripture or a recognized authority my posts are my opinions only and not Dharma. I offer my posts for entertainment purposes. Hope you find them either interesting or enjoyable!

treehuggingoctopus wrote:Provided you want, or at least allow yourself, to see that which is obvious. Deniers, as Malcolm pointed out, will just keep denying no matter what evidence life throws in their faces.

If all the glaciers melt by midsummer and the Ganges, or the Mississippi, or the Amazon runs dry, you'll know something is up.

You and I will. Some just won't.

Think of people dying of lung cancer who continue to claim their illness has got nothing to do with the lifelong habit they so cherish. Or of those who after 2008 continue to extol the 'insight' of Friedman and co. (and I'm not talking about those paid by this or that neoliberal think-tank to spout such drivel -- I'm thinking of regular joes who bear the brunt of the crisis). Or of the Holocaust deniers. Or, finally, of conspiracy theorists of all shades and kinds. They don't follow common sense, they won't heed reason, and they will distrust what they themselves experience.

treehuggingoctopus wrote:Provided you want, or at least allow yourself, to see that which is obvious. Deniers, as Malcolm pointed out, will just keep denying no matter what evidence life throws in their faces.

If all the glaciers melt by midsummer and the Ganges, or the Mississippi, or the Amazon runs dry, you'll know something is up.

You and I will. Some just won't.

Think of people dying of lung cancer who continue to claim their illness has got nothing to do with the lifelong habit they so cherish. Or of those who after 2008 continue to extol the 'insight' of Friedman and co. (and I'm not talking about those paid by this or that neoliberal think-tank to spout such drivel -- I'm thinking of regular joes who bear the brunt of the crisis). Or of the Holocaust deniers. Or, finally, of conspiracy theorists of all shades and kinds. They don't follow common sense, they won't heed reason, and they will distrust what they themselves experience.

There are flat earth believers today as well. You don't need 100% consensus to say the matter is decided.

Unless I am quoting scripture or a recognized authority my posts are my opinions only and not Dharma. I offer my posts for entertainment purposes. Hope you find them either interesting or enjoyable!

Dharmagoat - I was addressing Kim in the paragraph where I refer to her there, and you in the others.

Kim - I accept the sources I do because they aren't full of contradictions and haven't been made unfalsifiable.

Making unfalsifiable hypotheses is a common cultic technique, because it means that no matter what evidence is provided to the contrary, they will believe the hypothesis. For instance, all empirical deviations from the prediction are explained away as being an effect of what the prediction occurs is happening . All arguments to the contrary aren't to be considered because they come from people who reject the infallible guru . If the holy text says it's true, it is necessarily true, like when it claims that there is a consensus, even though none such exists .

Moreover, another common feature of cults is a belief in a coming apocalypse -- you must take action now to avert it!

Of course, of the thousands of predicted end-of-the-worlds, none occurred, hence why we are here. Whenever you see people trying to scare you into believing something by threatening that you'll die if you don't, even though there's no conclusive evidence, you know that their arguments are bankrupt.

"This justification would not have survived any peer review, in any journal that I'm willing to publish in."

Despite the fact that there's no consensus among peer reviewed data, and your graph pages back uses flawed methodology as I pointed out, the fact that AGW propagandists rely on peer review means nothing if the data they're submitting for peer review is falsified.

And despite that, fundamentally the argumentation of AGW propagandists fails in that it shifts the focus, knowingly, to temperature data (including falsified data), despite the fact that the real crux of the issue is in assumptions about feedbacks which the models make. If the models are right, the climate history of the world would not be the same as it is -- just like creationism, despite the fact that we have geological records past 4 billion years, they still believe, with their unfalisifiable hypotheses, that the world is only a few thousand years old. There really is no difference here, it's the same dishonesty.

America is very sick. Everyone else in the world understands climate change. How is climate change a plot? It's simply the consensus. It was a theory in the 80's and has turned out to be confirmed. Being an unknowing sock puppet of global energy conglomerates is creepy.

Nemo wrote:America is very sick. Everyone else in the world understands climate change. How is climate change a plot? It's simply the consensus. It was a theory in the 80's and has turned out to be confirmed. Being an unknowing sock puppet of global energy conglomerates is creepy.

It was even a theory in the nineteenth century, and now it is confirmed. However, some people, for whatever perverse reasons they may have, insist against all reason that we are being duped by a grand conspiracy, the purpose of which they can never clearly articulate.

I had a look at the process with my provincial government a few months ago, and there are boxes of key terms which you can check. If your research deals with key terms in these areas, you're more likely to get funding. One of the boxes was for women and gender studies, and there was a box for climate change research too. These are two of the topics which get some of the highest funding, no surprise then that now climate change is also a feminist topic.

People don't set out to do a project which makes or breaks massive theories like AGW, they research specific topics and collect data in specific areas. But convincing the government to keep funding such research means convincing them that this is a matter which the government both needs to take seriously because it may be responsible, and needs to take action which can work. The grant process is, in fact, highly political, and each project provides parliament with brief lay-terms summaries.

Not to mention the book deals and movie sales from the hype. Then there's of course the fact that before the hype the stocks of renewable energy sources and electric car companies was relatively equal to its value, compared to the height of the hype a few years ago, when they would have made any investor a small fortune. Of course, I do support renewable energy, but that's beyond the point. If you are just investing in oil stocks, you know you won't be making much more than they're currently worth.

There are many incentives to promoting the idea of AGW. Even accepting all the AGW premises, you still have uncertainty due to the unpredictability of the system -- let's face it, there has been, and probably never will be, reliable ways of predicting climate change. Some people won't be convinced that the premises of AGW don't hold up to scrutiny until we really do have too little carbon based energy sources to utilise and they still see CO2 levels rising and falling with no help from us.

In the end, remember that this is almost all government led. The millions made by Hansen are mostly from government funded institutions, prizes and grants. People in government benefit with jobs and money, that's the bottom line. So long as government as it currently works exists, bureaucracy will keep increasing, and they'll keep paying themselves more and more because they have the monopoly on violence through taxation. Is there a solution to this problem? Not immediately, no. But vox populi vox dei. It doesn't matter what the real state of science is, it doesn't matter that there isn't a real consensus in institutions of higher learning, what works, works according to the simple equation of: public opinion + potential bureaucratic profit = public policy.

I had a look at the process with my provincial government a few months ago, and there are boxes of key terms which you can check. If your research deals with key terms in these areas, you're more likely to get funding. One of the boxes was for women and gender studies, and there was a box for climate change research too. These are two of the topics which get some of the highest funding, no surprise then that now climate change is also a feminist topic.

People don't set out to do a project which makes or breaks massive theories like AGW, they research specific topics and collect data in specific areas. But convincing the government to keep funding such research means convincing them that this is a matter which the government both needs to take seriously because it may be responsible, and needs to take action which can work. The grant process is, in fact, highly political, and each project provides parliament with brief lay-terms summaries.

Not to mention the book deals and movie sales from the hype. Then there's of course the fact that before the hype the stocks of renewable energy sources and electric car companies was relatively equal to its value, compared to the height of the hype a few years ago, when they would have made any investor a small fortune. Of course, I do support renewable energy, but that's beyond the point. If you are just investing in oil stocks, you know you won't be making much more than they're currently worth.

There are many incentives to promoting the idea of AGW. Even accepting all the AGW premises, you still have uncertainty due to the unpredictability of the system -- let's face it, there has been, and probably never will be, reliable ways of predicting climate change. Some people won't be convinced that the premises of AGW don't hold up to scrutiny until we really do have too little carbon based energy sources to utilise and they still see CO2 levels rising and falling with no help from us.

In the end, remember that this is almost all government led. The millions made by Hansen are mostly from government funded institutions, prizes and grants. People in government benefit with jobs and money, that's the bottom line. So long as government as it currently works exists, bureaucracy will keep increasing, and they'll keep paying themselves more and more because they have the monopoly on violence through taxation. Is there a solution to this problem? Not immediately, no. But vox populi vox dei. It doesn't matter what the real state of science is, it doesn't matter that there isn't a real consensus in institutions of higher learning, what works, works according to the simple equation of: public opinion + potential bureaucratic profit = public policy.

"One of the boxes was for women and gender studies, and there was a box for climate change research too. These are two of the topics which get some of the highest funding, no surprise then that now climate change is also a feminist topic."

Yes, because women and children will be the mostly heavily impacted by the negative effects of climate change, since they are still largely invisible.

"So long as government as it currently works exists, bureaucracy will keep increasing, and they'll keep paying themselves more and more because they have the monopoly on violence through taxation."

That is a common libertarian point of view.

But this is not a proof, this is fallacious reasoning at best, paranoia at worst.

Nemo wrote:America is very sick. Everyone else in the world understands climate change. How is climate change a plot? It's simply the consensus. It was a theory in the 80's and has turned out to be confirmed. Being an unknowing sock puppet of global energy conglomerates is creepy.

It was even a theory in the nineteenth century, and now it is confirmed. However, some people, for whatever perverse reasons they may have, insist against all reason that we are being duped by a grand conspiracy, the purpose of which they can never clearly articulate.

M

Yes. Me too, I used to be a firm believer of the man-made climate change through the 70-80-90s.I don't believe it any more. It does have a feel of a dogma/cult to it.

And me too, I am highly dissappointed with the mainstream media. There are just too many obvious, systematic lies and propaganda there to ignore.Just see what has been written in the last 10-15 years about Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia, Syria, war on terror, humanitarian spreading of democracy, humanitarian bombing, surgical bombing, etc. etc. etc.I just cannot take it any more, makes me feel vomiting to see so much lies.

I am personally very sensitive to this, because I grew up in a former communist country with state controlled media full of lies.All newspapers, TV, Radio, everything was repeating those very same obvious lies all the time.

An almost identical feeling to the international main stream Western media nowdays indeed.

Zhen Li wrote:Dharmagoat - I was addressing Kim in the paragraph where I refer to her there, and you in the others.

Kim - I accept the sources I do because they aren't full of contradictions and haven't been made unfalsifiable.

Zhen Li,For the record, I'm a "he" - beard, bass voice and the usual equipment - not that it should make any difference to you or to the value of my arguments.

"I accept the sources I do because they aren't full of contradictions and haven't been made unfalsifiable," sounds fair enough, and thank you for beginning to answer my question. But it's a very negative kind of answer and implies that the work of the other team - my team, if you like - is full of contradictions and has been made unfalsifiable. That is simply not true. Contemporary climate science is based on, and connected to, basic physics and chemistry and it has been tested all the way by the best scientific practice we have, peer review. If you deny climate science, you deny all science. Do you do that? That is a serious question.

Zhen Li wrote:Making unfalsifiable hypotheses is a common cultic technique, because it means that no matter what evidence is provided to the contrary, they will believe the hypothesis. For instance, all empirical deviations from the prediction are explained away as being an effect of what the prediction occurs is happening . All arguments to the contrary aren't to be considered because they come from people who reject the infallible guru . If the holy text says it's true, it is necessarily true, like when it claims that there is a consensus, even though none such exists .

Moreover, another common feature of cults is a belief in a coming apocalypse -- you must take action now to avert it!

Of course, of the thousands of predicted end-of-the-worlds, none occurred, hence why we are here. Whenever you see people trying to scare you into believing something by threatening that you'll die if you don't, even though there's no conclusive evidence, you know that their arguments are bankrupt.

You have claimed before that AGW is a "cult". It isn't - or if it is, it has entrapped and enrolled every major scientific body in the western world and almost every scientist working in the field - see for instance, this page: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus(Incidentally, you asked me a while ago not to just provide links but to give my opinion of them. However, I don't want to force my opinions on you but to get you to read the material I link to and think about it for yourself. Please do.) Your "cult" has also hoodwinked the governments of countries from the US to China (going either eastwards or westwards). And it has done that by promising eternal life and buckets of gold to everyone who signs up ... not. Weird cult!